the issue is as old as eden itself, that being: does god have the right to tell us what to do?
that core question, more than anything else, defines what jehovahs witnesses are about, in that we are outspoken advocates and supporters of jehovahs right as sovereign to require obedience from his creatures.
the flip side of that is, of course, rebellion against god, which is expressed in numerous ways and on all levels of society.
Thinker,
No you did not read it correctly. You cut that sentence in half and by so doing changed its meaning. Had you not done so, its meaning would have been clear. I wrote: "Because 'God is love,' and because God wanted to create people in his 'own image,' He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people."
i'm reading a book by isaac asimov called:.
"beginnings:.
the story of origens-.
Dave,
The answer to part of your question seems pretty simple. According to the Bible Adam lived 930 years. That means that, if he was created in about 4000 BC, he died in about 3000 BC, the time Asimov estimates written records of historical events first began to be made. So then, if Asimov is correct, many of the events recorded in Genesis may have been written down by Adam and his immediate descendants, and then those written records may then been added to and passed down from generation to generation, and eventually been presented to Moses by the Hebrew people he had helped to free to assist him in his writing of Genesis.
However, eyewitness accounts cannot explain all of the contents of Genesis. Some things, such as the events which occurred prior to God's creation of Adam, must have been revealed to Moses, or to an earlier writer of the records Moses referred to when he wrote Genesis, by God Himself. For no man was around to witness the events recorded in Genesis which occurred before God created man.
the issue is as old as eden itself, that being: does god have the right to tell us what to do?
that core question, more than anything else, defines what jehovahs witnesses are about, in that we are outspoken advocates and supporters of jehovahs right as sovereign to require obedience from his creatures.
the flip side of that is, of course, rebellion against god, which is expressed in numerous ways and on all levels of society.
Andee,
You asked, "If Jehovah is so perfect then what is the point of this whole juvenile chess game? Why not just create what he desires in the first place? Why set us up?"
The only way the story of Adam and Eve makes sense is to understand that God not only knew how things were going to end up in Eden, but that He deliberately set the whole thing up to make a point. What point? This one. If Adam in paradise, without a problem in the world, could not manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance does any human being have of living their entire trouble-plagued life without sinning either in word, thought or deed? No chance at all. That is the lesson that was illustrated in Eden. Human beings have a sinful nature. A nature which God gave us.
Why did God give us a "sinful" nature? Because "God is love," and because God wanted to create people in his "own image," He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us as free people. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wong, free to do both good and evil.
Because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does, we are less righteous than God. And because we are none of us deserve to live forever. That means all human beings have, in effect, from their births been condemned by God to die. Not because of anything Adam did, but because we ourselves all fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
That's the bad news. Now the Good News. The Bible tells us that God was willing to accept the death of His Son Jesus Christ in place of the deaths which own His high standards - only those who are completely righteous deserve to live forever - had determined we all must suffer. (Matthew 20:28; John 10:11; Romans 3:24; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:18,19; 1 John 1:7; 4:10; Rev. 5:9.)
This is the Good News presented in the pages of the New Testament. That even though God's high standards demanded our deaths as the penalty for our sins, He is willing to accept the death of Jesus Christ in place of the deaths of all who now also accept Christ's death as payment in full for all their sins. And because God accepts Christ's death as payment for the sins of Christians, He no longer considers Christians to be sinners. Rather, He considers them to be righteous ones who are now fully worthy of eternal life. And because He does, He now promises to give eternal life to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.
remember,.
remember being at the door and reading from matt.
24 to prove that we are in the last days?
I just wanted to point out that it is not Matthew 24 that is in error here, just the Watchtower Society's interpretation of it.
Jehovah's Witnesses teach that crime, wars, contagious disease, earthquakes, famine and the like are signs of Christ's second presence and have been much worse since the year 1914 than in past generations. They teach that this proves that Christ returned in that year. However, as Lark has pointed out, the facts show that, if the Bible is truly the word of God, this must be a misunderstanding of scripture.
Read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 carefully and you will find what Jesus was really saying. His point was that such conditions would exist all the way up to the time of his return and would not be signs of his return at all. He warned his disciples that they should not be worried by such things. He said, "These things must take place but the end will not come right away." (Luke 21:9) He compared the difficult times to come to "birth pains." (Mt. 24:8) For just as a woman must often undergo a long painful period of time before she finally gives birth, so Jesus indicated that our world had much pain to endure before he would return.
To support their "composite sign of Christ's invisible presence" interpretation of scripture the Watchtower Society has shamelessly played with crime, war, disease and earthquake statistics for many years in an attempt to prove their contentions. The truth is, however, since 1914 none of these problems has gotten worse and most have gotten much better compared to past generations.
An objective study of scripture and history clearly shows that the Society's "composite sign" interpretation is not a teaching of scripture. However, the dishonest men who run the Watchtower Society tell all Jehovah's Witnesses that they must accept this obvious misinterpretation of scripture and distortion of history.
reasoning from the scriptures says on pp95-97 that months consist of 30 days.. years therefore would be 360 days long.. i have calcaluted(sic)that for every year in the `western'calender such a 360 day calender would fall 4/5 days depending on whether it was a leapyear or not.
now over a period of 2520 years,a 360 day calender would be 9,940 days behind a 364/5 day calender(25 years!
) therefore 2520 years according to book of daniel would fall in 1889!.
Badboy,
I think you understate the problem with this aspect of the Watchtower's 1914 interpretation. There are several calendar related problems with this interpretation.
First, JWs tell us that the "times" of Daniel 4 referred to "prophetic years" of 360 days each. Their belief is based on the idea that the "1260 days" spoken of in Revelation 12 are there equated with the "3 and 1/2 times" also there spoken of. But this is not necessarily so. (For instance, the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 may possibly refer to the time when Christianity was protected between the time of Christ's ascension and the time the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the good news began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "3 and 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This "3 and 1/2 times" would then be understood to be the period of time from 36 AD until the time of Christ's return.) Since some interpretations of Revelation 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "3 and 1/2 times" do not refer to the same period of time, it is quite possible that the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" does not even exist in the Bible.
Second, as you have pointed out, it seems contradictory that each of the 360 days in each of these 7 supposed "prophetic years" was meant to picture a solar year containing 365.24 days. For if days were meant to be understood as years, then it would follow that days in prophetic years ought to be understood as an equal number of 360 day "prophetic years," not an equal number of 365.24 day solar years.
Third, this interpretation of Daniel 4 is internally inconsistent with both Daniel and Revelation. The Watchtower's interpretation of Daniel 4 tells us that its "seven times" = 2,520 years. We are told that the cryptic word "times" clearly indicates a greater meaning than just "seven years." But when the term "3 and 1/2 times" (half of seven times) is used in both Daniel and Revelation (Dan. 8:25; Rev.12:14) the Watchtower does not say those "3 and 1/2 times" equal 1,260 years, half of 2,520 years. To do so would certainly be consistent with their Daniel 4 interpretation. But the Watchtower Society tells us that when the term "3 and 1/2 times" appears in the Bible it simply means 3 and 1/2 years and nothing more.
Finally, we should remember that the Jews used a lunar calendar which contained six months of 30 days and six months of 29 days, totaling 354 days. The Jews adjusted their lunar calendars by adding a thirteenth month to them every few years to prevent them from falling too far out of sync with the solar year. But the fact remains that a "year" to the Jews meant a 354 day lunar year, not a 365 day solar year, and definitely not a 360 day "prophetic" year. So, if the word "times" in Daniel 4 was meant to be understood as "years," Daniel almost certainly would have understood them as 354 day lunar years.
These are only the calendar related problems with the Watchtower's "1914" interpretation of Daniel 4. There are, of course, many more problems with it.
i wish to present three situations that are true to life and open up a discussion on these different scenarios and how would would personally act toward them.. 1) a 75 year old person has been a jw for the past 40 years.
most of their friends are jws.
they look forward to the fellowship at the meetings and though the congregation is far from perfect, they are pleased with the fact that they have a purpose in life.
Hillary,
You asked: Would you try to inform them of the failings of their religion if you were given the opportunity?
I think you know my answer. Of course I would. Why? Because I have good news to share with them.
Sure, these people's lives may be somewhat better with JWs than they used to be without JWs. But I know they could be much better still as free Christians. I know how much better my life is since I shed the heavy yoke of Watchtower slavery and replaced it with the kindly yoke of Jesus Christ. I also know that even though the Watchtower yoke may be a bit lighter than the various yokes these people used to bear, it is still much heavier than the one Jesus Christ requires His followers to carry.
Because I know these things, I would feel compelled to tell these people that Christ died to set them free. Free not only from sin's condemnation to death, but also free from bondage to religious laws and to all men who make them.
Some here may choose to "leave well enough alone" because they have nothing better to offer these people. But I believe I do have something much better to offer them. I would encourage them to develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ rather than with a religious publishing house. And I would invite them to attend Church with me and my family and encourage them to become part of a new spiritual family, one whose love for them and friendship with them would not be contingent on their total loyalty to a few men in Brooklyn, New York.
the only way to go to heaven is believing that jesus christ is god's son, and that he was sent here to earth to die on the cross for our sins.
if you confess him as lord and savior, then and only then, will you be certain that you are going to heaven.
Jan,
You wrote: Read the text in John again. ... when it comes to religion ... belief in absurd tales ... is evidence of virtue, instead of stupidity. Why is that?
I read it again. Nowhere in this text does Jesus either say or imply that it is a virtue to believe something without having some evidence of its truthfulness. The fact is, the Bible contains several passages that encourage us to be skeptical of those making religious claims. I'm sure you know of these passages, so I wont bother to quote them. In the text you quoted, the only thing Christ indicated He considered to be a virtue was being willing to believe in things that are true without having absolute physical proof that they are true.
You wrote: You simply miss -- intentionally for rhetorical effect, of course -- the moral lesson of the whole tale.
It seems we understand this passage differently. But I will not question the motives behind the understanding you expressed, as you have questioned mine.
the only way to go to heaven is believing that jesus christ is god's son, and that he was sent here to earth to die on the cross for our sins.
if you confess him as lord and savior, then and only then, will you be certain that you are going to heaven.
Jan,
You wrote: One amazing example of how doubt was villified, we find in the story about Thomas the doubter. ... Alas, here we find Jesus (John 20:29) ruining the whole story by making an outragously stupid conclusion: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." ... In other words, the Jesus of John blessed blind superstitious faith and repudiated sound skepticism.
Baloney. Jesus did not condemn Thomas' sceptisism. He simply praised most Christians whom He knew were willling and able to believe in Him with less physical proof. You seem to think it is a virtue to only believe in things which can be proven beyond any doubt. I do not. Requiring absolute proof of something before you are willing to believe in it is not a virtue. It is a harmful vise. Such an attitude causes people many problems in life. One such problem is being unable to trust in other people. I trust my wife completely. I am certain that she has never cheated on me and never will. But how can I be sure? I have not had her followed everyday by a private detective. Neither am I able to look into the future. So how can I be so sure about this matter without absolute proof? It's called "faith." I have faith in my wife. I know she appreciates my faith in her.
I also have faith in Jesus Christ. And I'm sure that He appreciates my faith in Him. He indicated His appreciation for Christians who are able to put this kind of faith in Him when He said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
does anyone here take the creation story literally?
if yes, did u do ample research and think carefully but still believe in it?
if u don't think that the story should be taken as literal, what is your reading of it and do u still believe in the bible as the inspired word of god?...thanks in advance..
Clash,
We have gone through this before. I have already answered this question at great length in other threads. Evidently you didn't read my responses to you or didn't understand them. So, I doubt posting another long answer to your question here will change things. If you are relly interested in reading a long answer to your question look up one of those old threads and do so.
For now I will just say that the word "fall" is not used in the Bible to describe what happened in Eden. I believe that Adam did not "fall" from a condition of righteousness to a condition of unrighteousness. I believe God simply used Adam to demonstrate the unrighteous condition of the human race, of which Adam was a part. God also used Adam to show that all people are undeserving of eternal life, and that we are all in need of God's forgivness which He now offers us through Jesus Christ.
Clash, obviously we understand some parts of the Bible a little differently. Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to do that. Christians are.
the march 1, 2002 watchtower contains a couple of articles on noah's flood and the application of this legend to "our day".
thrust of the articles is first to show that the flood was a real, earthwide event, and then to scare ignorant readers into accepting the jw message by claiming that our world is about to undergo a similar divine punishment.
pretty standard fare for long time jw observers.. in the past the watchtower society has published extensive material purporting to show that a global flood occurred a few thousand years ago.
Seeker,
You wrote: So 119 years, 11 months, and 3 1/2 weeks wasn't enough preaching. He needed that last day or two for return visits, huh.
Yes, I think so. By so doing God may have intended to also illustrate the fact that He gives every one of us the opportunity to repent and accept His provision for our salvation right up until our last day of life.
You wrote: Besides, that would mean Noah was keeping the wicked from heading for higher ground too. Nasty trick.
The wicked had no time to head for higher ground. The Bible seems to say that the flood was primarily caused by "waters from the great deep" which "burst forth." I believe this probably refers to tidal waves which came from the Persian Gulf. I believe the land of Noah was far enough inland from the Gulf that it escaped the crashing force of those tidal waves but was, nonetheless, quickly and completely flooded with water, allowing no time for those outside the ark to move to higher ground.
You wrote: The seaworthiness of all wooden ships is clearly not in question.
Read Jan's article attempting to debunk the possibility that Genesis is describing a large local flood. You will see that is indeed part of what he is questioning.
You wrote: It is the particular design of the ark that was so stupid. If God designed it, He made a shape guaranteed to fail.
That is odd. I have always heard that the ark's 6 to 1 length to width size ratio is the perfect ratio for large seagoing vessels, and creates a vessel that is very stable and cannot be easily capsized. I have also heard that that this proportion of length to width continues to be used by navel architects.
You wrote: If the flood was as cataclysmic as flood believers are forced to say it was (to make the mountains, freeze the arctic, destroy civilizations), the ark would have been in for a heck of a ride. ... The ark would have been in splinters in no time flat.
You seem to forget that I do not believe Noah's flood covered the mountains and froze the arctic. I believe Noah's flood was a large inland flood which covered only the land of Noah, a "land" which may have been only 30 or 40 miles across.
